Sections

Never mind House of Commons decorum: Aim for smart

According to a briefing note prepared for Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney, the federal government planned to review the files of Egyptian nationals granted refugee status over their membership in the previously outlawed group, Muslim Brotherhood, "in light of the Arab spring."Photo: THE CANADIAN PRESS/Adrian Wyld

Reform Question Period? Absolutely, you say. All too often this 45-minute daily showcase of democracy devolves into buffoonery unfit for the locker room. “I wonder how many Members of Parliament are embarrassed to bring school kids into Question Period,” opined former MP Glen Pearson in 2010. “I think we have to change.”

Balderdash, cry others. The House was never intended to be genteel, notes my colleague John Ivison. Let fly with the catcalls and let the delicate take up another line of work. If anything the odd jolt of genuine conflict, as opposed to canned outrage and ersatz scorn, makes the proceedings a little less tedious.

On this question, it seems to me, the libertarians and cynics have history on their side. As others have noted, previous attempts at such reform, including Conservative MP Michael Chong’s bid in 2010, have failed.

Opposition whip Nathan Cullen’s latest effort, an attempt to impose a school-marmish-seeming standard of decorum arbitrated by the Speaker, will also likely fail. That’s just the nature of things. You can’t force people to be civil when they don’t want to be civil.

But this isn’t to say that the House of Commons, in particular Question Period, can’t be made better, or even turned into a telling, relevant display of democracy in action. It can be. The proof lies just across the Atlantic, at Westminster.

There, in the Mother of all Parliaments, MPs jammed together like streetcar riders at rush hour engage every Wednesday in a nasty, no-holds-barred brawl (it isn’t that, of course, but it appears so, to Canadian eyes) during which all comers pepper the prime minister, David Cameron, with questions. This goes on for a full 45 minutes.

Far from avoiding the queries, include some tough ones from his own backbenchers, Cameron tackles each one — in a tone often not remotely civil. Ed Miliband, the Opposition leader, gives as good as he gets. Neither man expects garlands of roses from the other. Indeed they seem to share a healthy mutual disregard. Yet their jousts are riveting and, somehow, important. Why?

One obvious reason is that they have a forum to begin with. Prime Minister’s Questions exchanges between the prime minister and the leader of the opposition can go on for some time, because up to six supplementary questions are allowed the latter, by convention. That creates live debate.

There is no reading from notes, as has lamentably become common practice in Canada. The two main adversaries hop up and down in rapid-fire exchanges that are all the more engaging for their spontaneity. Because the answers are not canned, MPs on all sides listen to what’s being said, and reserve their jeering for the moments after and before.

At Westminster there are also Ministers’ Questions, in a five-week rotation, during which, as a matter of procedure, 35 queries, not including supplementary questions, are asked and answered. Has there ever been a time, in recent memory, when a Canadian cabinet minister has addressed even 10 questions in succession from opposing MPs in the House of Commons?

To Chong’s credit, his 2010 proposal addressed the intelligence deficit, as well as decorum. His plan would have seen longer time allowed for each question and answer, as well as regular prime minister’s and ministers’ questions. Chong would also have reserved half the questions in QP for backbenchers. The net effect would have been a dramatic boost in the House of Commons’ IQ, but also a sharp decline in the degree of control exerted by party whips. Small wonder that plan went nowhere.

There is a surprising degree of agreement, on the backbenches, about this and associated problems. Conservative backbenchers have been lobbying for months for greater influence in policy-making. NDP MPs will crack wise, in unguarded moments, about the strict message discipline imposed by the leader’s office. The centerpiece of Liberal leadership frontrunner Justin Trudeau’s plan for democratic reform — which he may live to regret, should he ever become prime minister — is to free individual MPs from the overweening influence of the PMO.

But all that obscures this simple fact, it seems to me: It’s not just about the system. Individuals choose. In current practice Mulcair typically leads Question Period with three questions, to which Harper usually responds. Mulcair’s questions are most often read from notes. Harper’s answers are most often canned. No one forces this on the leaders. They decide. It stands to reason that lesser ministers and MPs also must decide for themselves whether they will spout talking-point babble, because not all of them do.

Intelligence in other words, can get to be a habit. And so can the inverse. Never mind decorum: Let’s aim for smarts. MPs who claim they want reform can begin by upgrading the quality of their own statements. Why don’t they? They might be surprised at the result.

I am a national political columnist for Postmedia News. My work appears in the National Post, on Canada.com, the Ottawa Citizen, Montreal Gazette, Calgary Herald, Edmonton Journal, Halifax Chronicle-Herald... read more and Vancouver Sun, among other publications. I write primarily about national politics and policy.View author's profile